news details |
|
|
| Court acquits ESA accused | | |
Jammu, Oct 11 (JNF):zs Principal Sessions Judge Udhampur AK Koul today acquitted Zakir Hussain S/o Khushi Mohd Rr/o Manwa Hartian Udhampur who was facing trial under Explosive Substances Act by giving him the benefit of doubt.
According to the police case, on October 25, 2005 a source report was received in police station Rehmbal that accused was in possession of some explosive material. On the basis of this information case was registered and the accused was arrested in terms of section 54 of Cr.PC.
During interrogation the accused made a disclosure that he had concealed four detonators and three gelatin rods in a trunk in his residential house. On the basis of his disclosure recovery was effected from the place identified by accused. The recovered explosive material was defused by the Bomb disposal Squad .
After investigation the complicity of accused in commission of offence u/s 2/5 of Explosive Substances Act was established and after completion of investigation challan was presented.
The Court after hearing Public Prosecutor Navneet Gupta for the State and Advocate Pardeep Kumar for the accused observed that There are so many witnesses and most of them are from the police department and one of them is an FSL expert. Three civilians have turned hostile to prosecution and in view of the infirmities pointed out above it would be hazardous to believe the police officials who have deposed in the case.
Not only that PW Gurjeet Singh who was a member of bomb defusing squad has also turned hostile because he states that recovery was made before he reached the place of occurrence and he cannot identify the accused present in the court. He refutes his statement u/s 161 of Cr.PC to the extent that the explosive material was recovered at the instance of accused. PW Nath Suman says about the resealing of the explosive material. PW Babu Ram says about the delivery of the packets in FSL. PW Shiv Dev Singh is malkhana incharge and says about the entries having been made in the malkhana register in respect of the seized explosive material.
Court further observed that After evaluating the entire prosecution evidence it emerges that the case is solely based on the testimony of police officials and the disclosure statement of accused. As already pointed out the disclosure statement and the recovery shown at the instance of accused are seriously doubtful and are so not saved by section 27 of Evidence Act.
The testimony of police officials without corroboration from any independent witness cannot be safely relied upon.
The investigating officer has not entered the witness box for the reasons not known. The testimony of the investigating officer in a case of this type was of immense importance because he had recorded the disclosure statement and affected the recovery. It was important also for the reason that the civilian witnesses have not supported the prosecution theory and there is a serious doubt about the place of recovery and authorship of the concealment of explosive material. All these facts being co existent have left the court with no option but to observe that the case is not based on sound footing. The realities and truth apart it is always obligatory on the prosecution to establish the case beyond all shadows of doubt but here it appears that there are so many doubtful patches in the prosecution case and the accused cannot be convicted on the basis of doubtful version of the witnesses. That being so accused deserves the benefit of doubt . The case is accordingly dismissed and the accused is acquitted while being given the benefit of doubt. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
